About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
at the u.n. and e had this graphic -- he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he was, he created what was a new threshold for them. he called it a red line, but a new threshold. they had -- for the previous, i don't know, 6-12 months the israelis had been focusing on, primarily because of the defense minister, ehud barak, the zone of immunity. and what he meant was iran was going to with the character of its nuclear program, the depth, the breadth, the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program was going to reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military option. and no israeli prime minister is going to accept a situation where they face an existential threat, but they no longer have a military option to deal with it. so ehud barak was trying to identify the point at which the zone of immunity was going to kick in. now, he was saying it was going to be the end of 2012. now, he's changed that and said it's been pushed back 8-12 -- 8-10 months. when the prime minister was in new york he focused not on the zone of immunity, he focused on what's the point in
several examples of massive united nations lead interventions where the u.n. moved in and established a presence in iraq and afghanistan. it was u.s. and nato lead. in the middle east and north africa particularly in these countries we are discussing something new is happening. in some respects the international community learning to do things differently. we are not going back to what we have done in the last 20 years. we are going to do it in a different way and has an international community we are learning what that process is and if you are on the ground you can see it. a lot of people -- there's a hesitancy about this intervention and this involvement that is quite telling and wasn't there in the past. >> thank you. >> i would like to know -- i am abigail woodward and i would like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced and i would like to know if the muslim brotherhood has seen this debate impediment to that and how the constitutions are including them. >> let's start with the most significant case, constitutional issues and the role of the muslim brotherhoo
that in the '90s, we had several examples of massive united nations led interventions where the u.n. move in and establish a presence at a governance in iraq and afghanistan, it was u.s. and nato-led. but in the middle east and north africa particularly in these three countries we were discussing, something new is happening. this is the international community learning how to do things different. we are not going back to what we've done in the last 20 years. we're going to do this in a different way. and i think as an international community where learning what that processes. if you on the ground you can see. there's a lot of things going on, a lot of people there but there's a hesitancy about this intervention. and this involvement. that is quite telling. it wasn't there, you know, in the past. >> thank you. >> yes, i'd like to know how -- i'm abigail woodward and the like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced. and i like to know if the muslim brotherhood is seen as the main impediment to that, and other constitutions are including them? >> let's start perhaps with
relations with israel, the role of the security council and in the city council in the u.n. almost everything important is at stake in this. this is the most critical and most dangerous situation that the administration will be facing in the next year. looking at in the wind while this year is critical we have to realize this isn't all about some misunderstanding or fixable problem with iran not to getting about its civil nuclear program or even its nuclear weapons program colliding with the international community. these are all manifestations of the long term confrontation that we and the rest of the region has with iran at least since the 1970's and this confrontation will go on regardless of whether we get a nuclear deal or have a strike to prevent iran from moving to that nuclear weapons capability. we are going to have to deal with this problem over the longer term just as we have the last 30 years because it flows from kuran's view of its role in the region and the inconsistency of the view with the view of the other countries in the region, our values and our role both in t
is in control of its own sovereignty, the current u.n. security counsel revolution, the current isaf operation ends. you'll need a new, sound legal basis for the new operation. we will need status of forces agreements, and the north atlantic coup sill -- council is just engaging with the afghan government on what the shape of that condition would be. there's a plan for the end of 2014, and then there's the beginnings of the negotiations about what the next mission will be. as i said, it's not a combat mission. this is part of the long term commitment at the international community, way out over what is the transformation decade that agreed that the -- there's the military building, what the international community and a broader sense, what they are doing for the substantial problems of property development, govern nans in achings, and then what individual countries, like our own, are doing in the bilateral program to be part of the whole approach in afghanistan, of course, led by the afghan government. >> right. just want to ask questions about it at some point or another and how steaning and
for conflict. and i would look to the state department to carry this into the u.n. so that we get to the international forum particularly if it continues to escalate. member to come to frame that a declaratory policy for the nations that are not -- that have the servers that may not be partisan bidding so that it's clear, and then to start to think of other diplomatic actions that could potentially be taken to cut off the escalation of this activity or its attacks on us or on a larger group etc. >> but i don't want to take off the table actions on the diplomatic actions because i think that we have exhausted many of the potential diplomatic actions. and so we need to think about what are ways to send a strong signal to the leadership in x land and other places by some other actions in putting perhaps covert action. >> quick question, so far the u.s. government has said nothing publicly about who is behind the attacks. there's speculation in the media based on the leaks of incredible sources that the u.s. government has said nothing publicly. what is your decision as to whether or
's unparalleled success. at the u.n. last year, president obama spoke strongly about this thing that the u.s. quote will support a free and open internet so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. no one has been a more forceful advocate of the economic and social opportunities of the open internet and secretary of state hillary clinton. who delivered a landmark speech on internet freedom in 2010 when she said that one of the fundamental freedoms of the internet age was the freedom to connect. the idea that government should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. now, internet freedom is sometimes cited as an obstacle to addressing the issues of cybersecurity and intellectual property theft. i disagree with that. i disagree not because i question the importance of issues of the magnitude of the threat. a very serious problem we have to address. but i believe based on my experience that we can address those issues without undermining the core values like internet freedom and privacy. we've put our money where our mouths are at
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7